No, Nicola, a vote against independence is not a vote for Trident

Writing blog posts based on the tail end of a radio interview you have caught  is fraught with danger. However, I want to take issue with something Scottish Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said.

She had been asked about today’s Guardian story which suggests that the Trident base at Faslane could be designated UK territory in a way similar to the sovereign military bases in Cyprus for a temporary period post independence.

She said that if the UK Government wanted to keep weapons of mass destruction, it could do so, but Scotland would just have voted against Trident, for independence.

On the ballot paper, it will ask “Should Scotland be an independent country?” It won’t say “Should there be nuclear weapons in Scotland?”

I am of the opinion that these weapons of mass  destruction are completely immoral and I want them off these islands, and in fact, off the planet, as soon as possible. When I go to cast my vote in favour of staying in the UK, it will not be a vote in favour of nuclear weapons. Nor will it be that everyone who votes for independence will be voting against Trident. They will be voting for Scotland to make up its own mind. It is disingenuous of Ms Sturgeon to suggest otherwise.

Going back to the Guardian article, Sir Nick Harvey and Sir Menzies Campbell take opposing views. Nick is quoted as saying:

If the Scots were to insist on us leaving it would sour the relationship on the broader canvas,” he said. “I think the most practical and likely outcome would be a Cyprus-type arrangement.

No doubt they would extract a financial price for that. But at the point the UK and Scottish government sit across the table looking at each other the UK government will only have a certain amount of money at its disposal. If the Scots demand a high price for satisfaction on the nuclear front there would be that much less money in the UK government’s pocket for all the other items which will be on the agenda.

On the other hand, Sir Menzies said there could be a backlash if that happened – before having a right go at the inherent inconsistency of the SNP’s position in wanting to be part of NATO without a nuclear deterrent.

To seek to impose a financial penalty on an independent Scotland in relation to the decommissioning of Faslane might be seen as undue pressure and could easily play into the hands of the SNP,

The straightforward answer to all of these issues is to ensure that the referendum is won by those who believe that the United Kingdom should be preserved.

But Campbell said that the Scottish government may find that it would face pressure to be accommodating to the UK government if it seeks to join Nato. The former Lib Dem leader said: “As the debate continues over Trident the illogicality of the SNP position becomes yet more apparent. It seems extraordinary to be opposed in principle to nuclear weapons but to wish to join an alliance whose strategic concept provides that deterrence should be by way of conventional and nuclear means. The SNP answer to this point is a bland assumption that an independent Scotland would merely, by applying, be entitled to the dispensation enjoyed by Norway. But Norway was a founding member of the alliance. The fact that a dispensation in relation to nuclear matters has been allowed to Norway cannot be a guarantee that a new applicant would be allowed the same privileges.

While the future of the nuclear deterrent was always going to add an extra dimension to the independence negotiations, I hope we don’t actually find ourselves in the position of having to discuss how we split up the assets of UK PLC.

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Read more by or more about , , , , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • Al McIntosh 11th Jul '13 - 1:51pm

    If the Westminster-led no campaign has its way then the decision on whether to keep Trident would lie with the Westminster government. The London controlled Labour and Tory parties both want to keep trident in Scotland. Any Westminster government and parliament for the foreseeable future would be dominated by at least one of those parties and so would vote to keep Trident in Scotland. Ergo the political reality is that a no vote is a vote for Trident.

    Scrapping Trident, as with so many Liberal Democrat policies, the only realistic way to get them implemented in Scotland is by breaking free from Westminster domination through a Yes vote in next year’s referendum.

    Voting Yes to scrap Trident would save Scotland a share of the £100 billion cost of the WMD over its lifetime, adding to the independence dividend that could be spent on improving services or cutting taxes.

    In fact Ms Sturgeon is probably understating the case. Recently, a four hour delay was revealed by the exercise which simulated a nuclear convoy having an accident on the M74 just south of Glasgow in 2011. They were delayed by a shocking 4 hours before even setting off from Bristol! Yes, despite stationing their WMD near Glasgow, the UK MoD team that deals with these things is sent out from the South West of England! This shows how little Scottish lives are valued within the UK. If there were ever a real nuclear accident at Faslane the results could be devastating. The terrifying consequences of a no vote could be literally apocalyptic.

  • In years of polling, support for the Yes option on Scottish independence has never once got up to 40%. The only thing that could possibly drive it up to 50% would be more bad behaviour and UKIP-style rhetoric on the English side. Insofar as one can even take the referendum seriously, the best recipe for continued union is to stop right-wing forces from engaging in anti-Scottish tirades, and condemning them if they do. As long as Scots feel at home in the UK, they have no reason to vote for independence. One has to ask whether the Right isn’t really trying to get rid of Scotland, on the supposition that they’d have a better chance of electoral success in a RUK.

  • David White 12th Jul '13 - 2:54pm

    Could anything be better calculated to drive Scots voters into the ‘Yes’ camp than ‘our’ ConDem coalition’s suggestion that the WMD base might be made a Sovereign Base? I doubt it!

    Perhaps the MOD will turn Faslane into a British Guantanamo Bay.

    Of course, what really frightens our OldCon ‘friends’ is what would happen if they had to move their Trident missiles to Bournemouth, or Worthing, or Eastbourne, or Frinton-on-Sea. Such a move would be certain to convince zillions of geriatrics that our BIG bomb was a less than desirable defence against evil enemies.

    Thus far, I’ve managed to remain a loyal(ish) LD party member (807948X). I still do my ‘paper-round’, when required and, before returning to Yorkshire, I was a hard-working councillor. However, were I living in Scotland, I would vote SNP – without hesitation.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • David LG
    Seems very undemocratic this. There hasn't been a vote on this policy at conference yet our MPs behaviour prevents us from being able to maintain our policy on ...
  • Martin Bennett
    Brandon Masih: Illicit imports of cigarettes may happen but I doubt they will matter much. There could be a few rebellious youngsters who try it out but smoki...
  • John Grout
    I think this is a very good articulation of why Daisy voted the way she did. Personally I'm still not convinced - if the public health grounds are sufficient...
  • Brandon Masih
    Thanks for that @Simon R but why do you think it will be workable - geographic nature of NZ probably plays a better role for lower prevalence for illicit tobacc...
  • Simon R
    In answer to @Brandon Masih, I think the rolling ban will be workable for at least the next 10 years or so. Beyond that maybe less so because as the cut-off ag...